[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license

On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 06:03:30PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> > > Yes, it is different.  One is a program making callouts to a different
> > > entity, the kernel.  The case we were talking about is that of library
> > > linking. 

> > I should add here that it is relevant that the callouts to the kernel
> > are callouts to an interface which is defined as "not making things a
> > combined derived work", which is not normally the case for a library.
> > It is relevant and important here that the authors of the kernel
> > intend that understanding of those callouts.

> What is the definition of a "callout"?

> Why is it so different to a published library function?
> Apart from convenience of argument, that is.

I think you're overlooking the fact that in the case of a GPL library, 
the publishing of the interface is ALSO done under the GPL.  Are you 
using GPL header files when compiling?  Then the binary output is a 
derived work of the GPLed library.

This is not to imply that someone who reverse-engineers a GPL header 
file can necessarily link against a GPL library without also being bound 
by its license terms; it only shows that in the usual case, there's 
clear support for the claim that library linking creates a derived work.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp5E5LQn1muY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: